NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2939599" data-attributes="member: 22779">I think we do agree on one thing.  It is perfectly possible to create a setting by taking the setting first and overlaying the rules.  Of course that is true.  Twenty-five years of game design shows that.However, it is also perfectly true that you can go the other direction.  Start with the rules of the setting being dictated as much as possible by the RAW and going from there.Yes, it doesn't state how easy the CLERICS are to find (now I don't have to worry about what spells they know, they know them all), but, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the king probably could find one.  And, that's all it takes.  One.  One single 3rd level cleric could light a city in his lifetime.  And that city now has a huge advantage over cities that don't have light.For me, it comes down to what is easier to believe.  That no king, anywhere in a setting would avail himself on this resource or that one would and others would follow.  True, this is a style difference, but, this comes out of looking at the RAW and how it works in a setting rather than letting the setting dictate RAW.Take the buying and selling of magic items.  What are the chances that no one, not one single person, will ever sell a magic item, but, anyone will buy one?  Or, conversely, that no magic item ever created can be bought or sold?  Any resource that a society is capable to exploit will be exploited.  RC has gone on at length about human nature.  This too is part of that.  If something can be used, it will be.  How can you justify a setting where magic is not exploited without relying on that magic itself to create a setting where it can be supressed?</blockquote>

Verification